J.J.MUNIR,J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of title objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'). It has been brought seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 05.07.1999, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly in Revision Nos. 64/5059, 63/4346 and 62/4347 under Section 48 of the Act, the order dated 31.12.1990, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bareilly, and the order dated 07.08.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Bithrichainpur, Bareilly, disposing of five title objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are these: 2.1. Khasra Nos. 114, admeasuring 1.1015 hectares, 118 admeasuring 1.100 hectares and 119, admeasuring 0.0170 hectares, part of Khata No. 52 of village Alampur (village Dharupur, Mohd. Akbar) Tehsil, Bareilly, District Bareilly, were recorded in the basic year (relative to the relevant round of consolidation) in the names of three men, to wit, Sirajuddin s/o Shahadat Husain, Mainuddin and Amaruddin, both sons of Saijuddin @ Hakkan. Of these three, Sirajuddin is respondent no. 4 to the petition, whose interest is now represented by respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/7. Mainuddin is respondent No. 5 to the petition originally impleaded and now represented by his heirs and legal representatives 5/1, 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 5/5. Amaruddin was impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. He died issueless pending this petition. His rights, title and interest is represented by respondent Nos. 5/1 to 5/5 as per endorsement made in the array of parties, dated 05.05.2015. The claim of each of the deceased respondents 4, 5 and 6 is based on their recorded rights to the land in dispute, whereas the claim of respondent Nos. 7 to 13, over some part of that land, is based on adverse possession. 2.2. On 26.07.1985, objections were filed by respondent No. 4, under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, on ground that respondent No. 4 is the sole Bhumidhar entitled to be recorded over the entire land in dispute. It was claimed that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are estrangers and have no right, title or interest in the said land. It was further claimed that respondent Nos. 7 to 13, whose names had come to be recorded on the basis of possession which they claim to be adverse, may also be deleted. It was urged that their claim based on adverse possession is bogus and false. Two sets of objections were filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, on 28.07.1985. One was against respondent No. 4, wherein they claimed that they be recorded to the extent of half share over the land in dispute. The other was against respondent Nos. 7 to 13 whereby respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sought to delete the names of these respondents (7 to 13), who claimed on the basis of adverse possession. Thus, there were, in all, three objections that were filed before the Consolidation Officer on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 (one set) and respondent No. 5 (two sets). 2.3. The three objections, above detailed, were heard and decided by the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 07.08.1986. Both sets of objections filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were rejected while the objections filed by respondent No. 4 were allowed in their entirety. Two Appeals were preferred from the judgment and order dated 07.08.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 11(1) of the Act; one Appeal was brought by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that was numbered on the file of the Settlement Officer as Appeal No. 1391, whereas the other Appeal was carried by respondent Nos. 7 to 13 that was numbered as Appeal No. 1391-A. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation heard and allowed both the Appeals vide judgment and order dated 31.12.1990. He held the objections, brought by respondent No. 4, to be baseless and reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer in terms that so far as the land in dispute was concerned, the order of the Consolidation Officer would stand set aside with a direction that entries over that land, as they existed in the basic year, would stand. It was further ordered that the land in dispute would stand divided in the manner that the name of Sirajuddin be recorded over a half share, whereas a 1/4th each would go to Mainuddin and Amaruddin, respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was also ordered, allowing the Appeal of respondent Nos. 7 to 13, that the names of the said respondents, earlier entered over Khasra No. 114 of the land in dispute in category 9, would now be recorded (on the basis of adverse possession) as Bhumidhars with transferable rights, attended with a direction that balance of the land revenue be recovered. 2.4. Three Revisions were carried from the judgment and order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, last mentioned to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. One Revision was filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, that is to say, Mainuddin and Amaruddin against respondent Nos. 7 to 13, challenging that part of the order of the Settlement Officer, whereby these respondents were ordered to be recorded as Bhumidhars with transferable rights, accepting their claim on the basis of adverse possession. This Revision was numbered as Revision No. 64/5059. Another Revision was filed by respondent No. 4 against that part of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby the claim of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Mainuddin and Sirajuddin to be recorded over half of the land in dispute with a share of 1/4th each, along with respondent No. 4 came to be accepted. The said Revision was numbered as Revision No. 63/4346. A third Revision was also filed by respondent No. 4 challenging that part of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby he allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 based on adverse possession. This Revision was numbered as Revision No. 62/4347. Pending these Revisions, the petitioner purchased the share of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the land in dispute as determined by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, being renumbered as single Khasra No. 107 (new), instead of Khasra No. 114, 118, 119 (old) vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.1991, thus acquiring the said respondents' title to the part of land in dispute conveyed to him. 2.5. On 10.02.1999, an application for impleadment was made before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the pending Revisions which came to be allowed granting impleadment. The petitioner supported the case of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, claiming through them as he did in the same right, title and interest. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his judgment and order dated 05.09.1999, allowed both the Revisions filed by respondent No. 4, whereby he set aside the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 31.12.1990 and restored the order dated 07.08.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Revision filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was dismissed with the result that name of the 4th respondent was ordered to be recorded over the entire Khata/land in dispute, excluding the right, title and interest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, purchased by the petitioner.
(3.) Aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.;